G.R. No.

184478 March 21, 2012

PEREZ V. MADRONA
FACTS:
Respondent-spouses Fortunito Madrona and Yolanda B. Pante are registered owners of a residential
property located in reenheights !u"di#ision, Phase $$, Mari%ina &ity and co#ered "y '&' (o. 1)*+),
of the Registry of -eeds of Mari%ina. $n 1*.*, respondents "uilt their house thereon and enclosed it with
a concrete fence and steel gate. $n 1***, respondents recei#ed the following letter dated May 2,,
1*** fro/ petitioner 0ai/e !. Pere1, &hief of the Mari%ina -e/olition 2ffice stating that the structure
that they "uilt encroached on the sidewal% and that is in #iolation of P- 10*) of the (ational Building
&ode and R3 *14 on $llegally occupied5constructed i/pro#e/ents within the road right-of-way. 'he
respondent-spouses are gi#en 4 days to re/o#e the said structure. 3s response, respondent Madrona sent
petitioner a letter stating that the May 2,, 1*** letter 617 contained an accusation li"elous in nature as it
is conde/ning hi/ and his property without due process8 627 has no "asis and authority since there is no
court order authori1ing hi/ to de/olish their structure8 6+7 cited legal "ases which do not e9pressly gi#e
petitioner authority to de/olish8 and 6:7 contained a false accusation since their fence did not in fact
e9tend to the sidewal%. More than a year later or on Fe"ruary 2., 2001, petitioner sent another letter with
the sa/e contents as the May 2,, 1*** letter "ut this ti/e gi#ing respondents ten days fro/ receipt
thereof to re/o#e the structure allegedly protruding to the sidewal%. 'his pro/pted respondents to file a
co/plaint for in;unction "efore the Mari%ina &ity R'& on March 12, 2001. Respondents li%ewise sought
the issuance of a te/porary restraining order 6'R27 and a writ of preli/inary in;unction to en;oin
petitioner and all persons acting under hi/ fro/ doing any act of de/olition on their property and that
after trial, the in;unction "e /ade per/anent. 2n March 1), 2001, the R'& issued a 'R2 against
petitioner. 2n 0uly 24, 200:, the R'& rendered a -ecision in fa#or of respondents. 'he R'& decision
per/anently en;oined defendant Pere1 fro/ perfor/ing any act which would tend to destroy or de/olish
the peri/eter fence and steel gate of the respondents< property. 'he R'& held that respondents, "eing
lawful owners of the su";ect property, are entitled to the peaceful and open possession of e#ery inch of
their property and petitioner<s threat to de/olish the concrete fence around their property is tanta/ount to
a #iolation of their rights as property owners who are entitled to protection under the &onstitution and
laws. The RTC also ruled ha here !s "o sho#!"$ ha res%o"de"s& 'e"(e !s a "u!sa"(e per se and
presents an i//ediate danger to the co//unity<s welfare, nor is there "asis for petitioner<s clai/ that the
fence has encroached on the sidewal% as to ;ustify its su//ary de/olition. &3 affir/ed,
$!!=>? @5( respondents< structure is a nuisance per se that presents i//ediate danger to the
co//unity<s welfare and can "e re/o#ed without need of ;udicial inter#ention since the clearing of the
sidewal%s is an infrastructure pro;ect of the Mari%ina &ity o#ern/ent and cannot "e restrained "y the
courts as pro#ided in Presidential -ecree (o. 1.1.
A>B-?
(o. $f petitioner indeed found respondents< fence to ha#e encroached on the sidewal%, his re/edy is not
to de/olish the sa/e su//arily after respondents failed to heed his reCuest to re/o#e it. )"sead* he
should $o o (our a"d %ro+e res%o"de"s& su%%osed +!ola!o"s !" he (o"sru(!o" o' he (o"(ree
'e"(e. $ndeed, unless a thing is a nuisance per se, it /ay not "e a"ated su//arily without ;udicial
inter#ention. 2ur ruling in Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. v. JAC Liner, Inc., on the need for
;udicial inter#ention when the nuisance is not a nuisance per se, is well worth /entioning. $n said case,
we ruled?
Respondents can not see% co#er under the general welfare clause authori1ing the
a"ate/ent of nuisances without ;udicial proceedings. 'hat tenet applies to a nuisance per
se, or one which affects the i//ediate safety of persons and property and /ay "e
su//arily a"ated under the undefined law of necessity 6Monte#erde #. eneroso, ,2
Phil. 12+ D1*.2E7. 'he storage of copra in the Cuonset "uilding is a legiti/ate
"usiness. By its nature, it can not "e said to "e in;urious to rights of property, of health or
of co/fort of the co//unity. $f it "e a nuisance per accidens it /ay "e so pro#en in a
hearing conducted for that purpose. $t is not per se a nuisance warranting its su//ary
a"ate/ent without ;udicial inter#ention. D=nderscoring supplied.E
$n Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. v. Municipality of Tarlac where the appellant-
/unicipality si/ilarly argued that the ter/inal in#ol#ed therein is a nuisance that /ay "e
a"ated "y the Municipal &ouncil #ia an ordinance, this &ourt held? F!uffice it to say that
in the a"ate/ent of nuisances the pro#isions of the &i#il &ode 63rticles )*:-4047 /ust "e
o"ser#ed and followed. 'his appellant failed to do.
Res%o"de"s& 'e"(e !s "o a "u!sa"(e per se . ,- !s "aure* ! !s "o !".ur!ous o he healh or
(o/'or o' he (o//u"!-. ) #as 0u!l %r!/ar!l- o se(ure he %ro%er- o' res%o"de"s a"d
%re+e" !"ruders 'ro/ e"er!"$ !. 3nd as correctly pointed out "y respondents, the sidewal%
still e9ists. $f petitioner "elie#es that respondents< fence indeed encroaches on the sidewal%, it
/ay "e so pro#en in a hearing conducted for that purpose. (ot "eing a nuisance per se, "ut at
/ost a nuisance per accidens, its su//ary a"ate/ent without ;udicial inter#ention is
unwarranted.